Indo-Pak talks: The Pak game plan

The use of offensive language by Pakistan Foreign Minister S M Qureshi against the Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna after the talks was a premeditated and calculated stratagem aimed at scuttling the dialogue process to convey a clear message to India that the talks can continue only on its terms. This means that the Kashmir issue must occupy the central position and issues like Siachen, Balochistan and water dispute which concern Pakistan should be given priority over terrorism and other less contentious issues which were earlier agreed upon to create a friendly atmosphere. Qureshi made it clear that the Pak Establishment was not interested in meetings with ‘selective agenda’.

In fact, the Pak Establishment has no intention to take action against those who were involved in 26/11 attacks and therefore it does not desire the continuation of the dialogue process.

That this would happen was clearly visible since the talks were resumed in February this year after a hiatus of fourteen months. The Pak anti India rhetoric had become shriller and louder. Soon after the Foreign Secretary level talks, Salman Bashir, the Pak Foreign Secretary dismissed the evidence against Hafiz Md Saeed given by India as literature. Rahman Malik the Interior Minister declared in Washington on 31st July 2009 that India was indulging in baseless propaganda against Pakistan. In recent months, the Pak leaders are projecting that the water issue is creating tension which would further escalate making it difficult to normalize relations between the two countries. Of course, they are blaming India for the "unreasonable" stance on this issue. They have also pointed out India’s involvement in Baluchistan and had asserted that Pakistan had the evidence to substantiate this charge. That is another matter that not a shred of evidence has so far been found on India’s involvement in Balochistan.

Crucially, during the recent talks, Qureshi unwittingly revealed the real status of Hafiz Md Saeed in the Pak Establishment. His statement drawing parity between G K Pillai, the Indian Home Secretary and Hafiz Md Saeed the chief of Jamaat Ud Dawa-the mother organization of Lashkar e Toiba- exposed that the latter in fact is the head of Pak Establishment’s clandestine department meant to export terrorism. The comparison between the inflammatory speeches of Hafiz Saeed with the statement of facts given by Pillai can be justified only if both are occupying comparable positions.

An objective analysis of the Indo- Pak relations shows that whenever efforts were initiated by India to improve the relations between the two countries, the Pak leaders and officials took deliberate steps to derail the process. This also happened earlier after the Mumbai attacks in 1993 when India agreed to start the composite dialogue process and during the Agra Summit. Like this time, in the earlier instances too, the Pak leaders and officials blamed the Indian side for placing obstacles in the process of normalization of relations.

The reason why Pakistan derails the dialogue process every time is quite clear. The Pakistan Army, which determines Pakistan’s India policy, does not desire talks between the two countries except on its own terms. The Pak Army’s game plan has three planks. First, in the talks the focus should be on the ‘core’ Kashmir issue and other Pak concerns like the Siachen and Indian involvement in Balochistan, acceptance of Pak view on the water issue, there should be no focus on terrorism and no pressure on taking action against those involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Second, to continue to use the tension between the two countries to obtain financial assistance and weapons from the US. And third, to blame India for all its problems as well as for spoiling the environment to normalize relations between India and Pakistan with a view to escalate tension further that allows the Pak Army to perpetuate its rule in Pakistan.

In view of the above, there was a remote possibility of recent Foreign Minister level talks achieving the desired results. Qureshi blamed Pillai for spoiling the atmosphere by revealing the statements given by David Headley on the role of ISI in the Mumbai attacks. The fact is that even if Pillai would not have made this remark, the outcome of the talks would not have been different. Qureshi had also blamed Krishna for being "selective" in talks and for talking on phone to receive instructions from India. However, our Foreign Minister’s recent statement that Pillai should not have made this remark on the eve of his visit has provided with a justification for the rude behavior of Qureshi as well as for the failure of talks. The Pak newspapers like’ Dawn’ and ‘Pak Observer’ have already included this in their top stories and Rehman Malik has thanked the Indian PM and HM for ‘restraining their aide from criticizing Pakistan’ indicating that the talks failed mainly because of the negative statement made by Pillai.

Dealing with Pakistan, which is controlled by its armed forces with an adversarial mind set, is not easy. It is essential to accurately assess the situation there so as to understand the possible moves of the Pak Establishment. The National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, who is privy to all intelligence inputs as well as the interrogation reports of Kasab and David Headley, had rightly assessed that it is the existence of a deep nexus between the Pak based terrorist groups and the Pak Establishment which is making it difficult for India to deal with the problem of terrorism. He further remarked that India had a clearer picture of the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the system that supports terrorism in that country. He also assessed that the nexus would not be broken soon, indicating that Pakistan would continue to encourage terror groups against India. This assessment is based on the ground realties and needs to be taken seriously.

This raises the significant issue of adequacy of our response to Pakistan, which is supporting terrorism against us. Some political leaders and experts have suggested that the talks with Pakistan should be discontinued. While this step may not be desirable at this stage, India must make it clear that further talks would be contingent on Pakistan taking action against the real culprits involved in the Mumbai attacks and destruction of terrorist infrastructure. Simultaneously, we should undertake an effective publicity campaign to sensitize the international community of the issues involved so that there may not be any pressure from it to continue the dialogue process. In addition, the National Security Council (NSC) should convene a meeting so that all agencies and departments coordinate their actions to follow the agreed line of action. The NSC has been created to evolve an agreed line of action through detailed discussions with all concerned which is not possible in the Cabinet Committee on Security.

The issue of Indo-Pak relations pertains to national security and there is no room for having different opinions or perceptions. We have seen how Pakistan makes use of such differences or remarks made in good faith. Therefore, our officials and political leaders should adopt an extremely cautious approach and avoid giving a certificate of good behavior to Pakistan or making statements that Indo-Pak talks can be delinked with our core issue of terrorism or agreeing to the inclusion of Balochistan or other Pak- centric issues in the agenda. Past incidents underline the Pak Establishment’s capability to twist the fact to embarrass India.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Author

S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles.

S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman. . .